Wednesday, September 28, 2011

The Probabilty of Humanitarian Intervention as Framework for Human Security

The paper aims to
present a probable humanitarian intervention as framework of human security. It
objectifies humanitarian intervention as an element that will make human
security autonomous but not separate nor fully independent from non-traditional
security. Several literatures confuses the two terms as synonymous with each
other, where others differentiated them explicitly. Thus the essay will address
the ambiguity of both conceptions and discuss humanitarian intervention not as
a different concept from human security but argues that it may be part and
parcel of it, and in fact a possible framework to explain the paradigm of human
security autonomous to non-traditional security. This contribution aspires for
a sound, simple yet clear and unambiguous interpretation of human security to
the evolving field of security especially as a sub-discipline of International
Relations. In addition, it will also contend that there is a considerable middle
way for both human security and non-traditional security in meeting a tangency
point, and that is, a re-conceptualized version of human rights.

Why there’s a need to separate human
security from non-traditional security? In this line of inquiry, we need to
consider the aim of this paper as mentioned above, thus question should also
fit to the construction of essay. The proponent wants to emphasize that he is
not separating human security from non-traditional security because in his
second hypothesis he is also interested in looking for a middle way for both
conceived ideas. This is not to separate them but to make the conception of
human security autonomous from the conception of non-traditional security.
Related literatures have confused both conceptions and increased its ambiguity
which directed some scholars and practitioners to formulate their own
interpretations of human security and non-traditional security. The proponent
is confused when he read studies stating both conceptions identical in nature and
hence, equal footing status, when in fact it exacerbated further confusions and
tensions.

Consequently,
the primal objective of this study is to remove the confusion that these two
terms are facing. To exclude their identical character we need explanatory
power to claim and defend our main idea, and what the author is thinking is to
present human security with its own explanatory power to make a (standing)
paradigm coherent and clear. Further, the purpose is not a matter of
challenging what the other scholars have said but to add another view or
element to the diverse interpretations of human security vis-à-vis non-traditional
security. And his objective is to simply interpret human security as clear as
possible and without attached ambiguousness. The proponent’s essay will first
look into the evolution and development of the conception of the term
‘security’ then will discuss the ambiguity between the two conceptions and
provide humanitarian intervention as the explanatory framework to establish its
autonomy.